Revision as of 19:07, December 16, 2007

Contents

To Do

I plan on fixing up the articles here within the next year. Don't delete them, if you can help it. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition» 01:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

:-(

I miss you. *Sob.* You had BALLS. There are about 8 incidents I've seen where I've thought to myself, "If Famine was still around, he'd have banned that guy's ass off." Alas. I miss you :(. --THE 01:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... This reminds me of that time in Mr. Spang's class, THE... You know, that time when you bitched about how much you hated Mr. Spang behind his back, yet proceeded to suck up to him in class...--PhlegmLeoispotter*(garble! jank!) 03:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

OMG VANITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111111111111111111111. Naw, Famine was quite useful to the site, and I deserved that kwotespamming ban. I didn't know what uncyclopedia was about back then. --THE 18:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Will see when I get a chance to come back in force. Probably not until late Nov or Dec, with all I have to do. I still poke my head in once a day or so, and I try to ban someone once a week just to keep my skills sharp.

If anyone needs anything, drop a note here - I'm not so busy that I can't do the occasional thing, but this place has had to take a backseat to a bunch of life-changing stuff at the moment. (Thesis, applications to go back to school for the 3rd time, etc.) SirFamine,Gun♣Petition»10/24 22:09

Okay, I have to say something about this whole situation. In the past I've come to your talk page to defend Uncyclopedian and Kip the Dip, because I felt you gave them undeserved bans. Now you've done the same thing again, infinibanning THREE very useful users who were involved in a VERY MINOR flamewar that didn't cause any harm whatsoever. Seriously man, stop it with this heavy handedness. I doubt that any other user besides you felt that this petty flamewar was negatively affecting the site. People squabble with each other, it's human nature. RA, Manforman, and Kip would have sorted this issue out by themselves if you only let them. Now three users, all of whom truly love this site and enjoy editing it, are denied involvement with Uncyc. Work on your people skills, Famine, and stop being such a prick.--PhlegmLeoispotter*(garble! jank!) 04:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose that was a little harsh of me. I'm sorry I called you a prick; your banning policy's just far too harsh, methinks. I'm passionate about this topic, because we all love Uncyc and it seems wrong for you to infiniban useful contributors for minor offenses. --PhlegmLeoispotter*(garble! jank!) 04:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the three users in question (RA, Manforman and SmackBot, I assume. Wait... SmackBot makes worthwhile contributions?) really negatively effected the site directly, but they did violate several rules. SmackBot and RA abused sockpuppetry, and all three of them acted like dicks to each other. Several people were dragged into the fiasco, so it can also be classified as drama. They all deserve chastisement, but I have to agree infinite is too long. I'm not exactly crying over Manforman being infinibanned, but it still is an unethical overreaction. --T​K​F​​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​U​CK 04:20, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

None of us, Famine and myself included, have a RIGHT to edit here. Its a privelidge, and one that is allowed ONLY when people play together nice. Outside of this situation and these individuals, we have a set of rules to help the "community" here to get on and work together (or seperately) for the good of the site. These rules can't be applied to some and not others. If we did that there'd be chaos, and accusations of favouritism, etc.

With regards to these specific individuals I personally have given them extra chances to play nice, and I may very well have given them more. But there does come a point when you realise that no matter the number of chances you give someone, they aren't going to change their behaviour. Then you need to enforce the rule of law for the good of the many. It IS unfortunate that it has happened here, and maybe one last chance could be offered. But you need to ask yourself based on previous actions would any number of second and third chances make a difference? -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)

This is the only thing I'll be contributing to this mass drama that's broken out because of this issue. Kip's ban ought to be shortened, as he only made 1 sock, and a longer ban should be given to ol' smackbot because he made many more of them. I was away from the site for two days, and I come back to this? This website is supposed to be fun, yet it seems to have been overrun with drama and flamewars lately, which are still being sorted out now. I just hope we'll be able to pull through this period of madness and go back to focusing on writing funny articles. --THE 19:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

On a scale from 2 to 11, you are a jelly dick. --24.39.50.135 13:20, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, this whole bit of me being an unhappy dick and banning people stared from the fact that the only thing I really paid attention to recently was the Ban Patrol. Now, I'd noticed that it was getting a little overrun, and with my limited time I tried to clear off the worst offenders.

When I wander in and see a bunch of people A) running a flamewar *there*, of all places, B) creating bunches of socks which end up getting listed there, C) striking out each other's edits there, and overall, D) making a mess out of an already struggling process, I get irritated. Your ban was part of my "this is an important page, don't fuck with it" statement.

In the process, I started digging a little deeper into the flamwaring going on there, and started reading about the "I only made 2 of the sockpuppets to troll and flame" comments from people.

Really, the Ban Patrol isn't to be fucked with. Without it (or without anyone checking it and kicking some ass) the site quickly devolves into bitter flamewaring and sprees of stupid. It does get my dander up a bit to see people making more work for the admins, when it's clear that we're fairly lacking in admins to do work at the moment. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition»11/05 22:44

Come back with a cheery attitude

Come back with a cheery attitude? What the bloody hell do you think your attitude seems to be? Get lost. SmackBot's other IP address 22:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we all leave Famine the fuck alone?

What are you guys doing? For people that are so concerned about losing long-lasting members of the community, you're being horribly uncivil. State your complaint, civilly, and leave. There's no need to call anyone a dick. –SirSkullthumper,MD(criticize•writings• SU&W) 18:34 Nov 05, 2007

Hey, would you mind....

Hey, would you mind leaving my edits alone? You've reverted a lot of them, and it is kind of discouraging. I'm sure you don't want people in the community discouraged from contributing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added byGuitarplayer001 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 17 November 2007

I also banned you for 12 hours due to the amount of crap you were spewing out. If you missed that, my appologies. Read the links on your talk page, because most of what you're doing is bad. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition»11/17 15:46

Page Lock

I noticed that a long while ago someone requested on its talk page for Template:Straight to be locked, although there has been no response. Perhaps you can do something about it. --96.229.151.5 23:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sysop

I found the very-well hidden "make me a sysop" button on a very well hidden page and pushed it. You might want to check the voting page and see how it's done now. That's a bit more relevant in modern times. By the way, your sig is both spewing code on pages and illegal. Please fix it, asap. SirFamine,Gun♣Petition»11/25 14:18

VFS voting

I think the unstated rules for VFS have been two votes apiece in the admin vote portion of the process. It's not listed as such on the VFS page but I (and presumably other admins, given the patterns of voting) have been laboring under this assumption. Since it could affect the outcome of this month's voting I think we need to try to be consistent with precedent until the next vote at least. (Zombie also voted thrice but the bureaus always just ignore his votes anyway so they don't really matter.) —rc(t) 00:31, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, we are having a talk about attaching more than one vote to a nominee (as you have done) which you can participate in here. As with against votes I'm dead set against stacked votes, simply due to the amount of negativity that they produce. Think for now it would be better to stick with this system, as with previous VFS votes, and we can discuss it further in time for the next one. -- Sir Mhaille (talk to me)